Some people only take part in research for financial benefit. There’s no point pretending this motivation doesn’t exist, because it does. Instead, it should be recognised and marginalised. This is done through a combination of the metaphorical carrot and stick.

I won’t dwell on the stick, since these mechanisms should be hygiene factors for any research project – triple-checking the legitimacy, consistency and consideration given to responses.

Beyond the obvious requirements of running an interesting research project, it is with the carrot that researchers can get creative. I personally disagree with the ban on client products as incentives, but there are many non-monetary forms of gratitude that help facilitate a relationship based around mutual respect and reward. The opportunities to plant some carrots will vary depending on the nature of the research and the methodology utilised but a couple of (quantitative) examples include:

• Share basic data: Despite Marina Hyde’s protestations, lists are popular. So popular, that they are starting to eat themselves (which is why I like that a blog well-known for hosting a list of lists is called Fimoculous). Where opinions or intentions are aggregated, why not share the results? I might think Newcastle United are going to win the Championship this year, but is it a consensus opinion?

• Provide a basic segmentation: We may not necessarily appreciate them, but labels and stereotypes (or “pen portraits”, as we like to call them) are a useful way to communicate information at a broad level. We may even be curious to see which characteristics best fit our personality, and the promise of answers can be a strong motivation to participate with careful consideration. Quizilla has formed a business out of “What twilight character are you?” type surveys and Channel 4 ran a great example with their UK tribes project (Disclosure: We work with Channel 4, though we didn’t contribute to this project. And I’m an Indie Kid).

• Offer recommendations: This could be either editorial or response-generated. The latter would be more likely to produce “better” results, but the size of the data set needed limits usefulness to  only the biggest projects. In the same way that Last.fm can tell me that as I am listening to Lift to Experience I may also enjoy Six By Seven (I do), we can correlate consumption information to display the “nearest” options to those initially answered

There are multiple ways that we seek to maintain interest and involvement among our respondents, and we are regularly trying new methods to share and exchange . Doing so limits professional respondents, and encourages considerate participants.

sk

Image credit: Ryancr

In it, some recent marketing errors are highlighted. Namely:

• Tropicana’s new logo
• Motrin advertising
• Facebook’s Terms of Service
• Sci-Fi/Syfy rebranding

The author chasistes the companies for not listening. Rather bizarrely, she then squarely places the blame for this on the use of focus groups (of which its role in each of these decisions is unclear).

It is clear that there was an epic fail in each of these decisions. But it is only bad workers that blame their tools. Instead, it is the processes where errors can lie within research

• Objectives – Is the research about validating a decided-upon strategy, or critiquing it?
• Sample – There can be a tension between current and desired customers/users, due to aspirations on both sides. Both coalitions need to be adequately represented. Groups can be accused of being filled with professional respondents, but recruiters (at least the ones we use) are taking much greater care in ensuring a broad mix of participants
• Questioning – Groups are based in the present, with gut reactions to new concepts and post-rationalisation of past actions typical (as with most other forms of research). These effects can be mitigated through careful structuring of the discussion and careful wording of specific questions
• Moderation – With a group of personalities, some will eventually dominate more than others. To ensure that the overall mood is representative of all participants, and not just the most vocal, skilled moderation is necessary
• Interpretation – Unlike quantitative surveys, qualitative analysis isn’t limited to what the respondent is answering. Even without going into deep semiotics, there is plenty of “data” that can be used to interpret the answers that are given
• Context – Most important is the context that the research is placed in. Groups are limited in their scope and effectiveness, but then so are all methodologies. If this weren’t the case, there would be no debate on how to meet a specific objective. To overcome the limitations, multiple methods and their relative strengths can and should be combined. When big decisions need to be made, groups should only be one aspect of a larger research programme

All of these challenges can be overcome by using reliable research partners, whose expertise and opinion you can intrinsically trust.

Listening is a necessary component of formulating a strategy, and online conversation monitoring can be valuable in facilitating this. But it is one research option among many – no better and no worse than alternatives depending on the situation.

If someone is basing their entire marketing strategy around one tool (or one question), they are what they eat. Fortunately, few do so.

sk

PS While not an intentional attempt to display my plurality, I have published an accompanying post on my personal blog.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmtorrone/